host

Nearly a year has gone by since V.P. Cheney's little noticed "statements", televised on the May 30, 2005 episode of "Larry King Live" on CNN. In that interview, Cheney admits that Guantanamo detainees are POW's and that they were "captured on the battlefield",and that the U.S. is "at war". Cheney said that he does not take Amnesty International, "seriously"; a direct contradiction to the numerous citations of Amnesty International findings, found throughout communications from the white house, dod, and state department.

It seems to me that Cheney implicated himself, the POTUS, and other Bush administration officials, as war criminals, given the policies they put in place to violate the Geneva Conventions articles related to detaining and treating POW's, since Cheney admitted that the Guantanamo detainees are POW's. The administration has cited Amnesty International as a "reliable source", numerous times, in it's own public communications to justify it's policies.

What are we to believe? Are the Guantanamo detainees, POW's, as Cheney and Amnesty International have publicly stated? Is Amnesty International only accurate and reliable in instances where the Bush administration finds their reporting on human rights abuses, "useful", but wrong about reports of Geneva Convention violations related to treatment of U.S. military prisoners at Guantanamo? Are violations of the Geneva Conventions, on this methodical scale, war crimes?
<b>When it comes to Amnesty International, Cheney stated that he "does not take them seriously."Did the Bush-Cheney administration take any of it's own citations of Amnesty International, "seriously?.......

Seaver

Because someone was picked off the battlefield does not immediately classify them as PoW's. If you read the Geneva Convention:

SO... they were non-uniformed. The only time they get equal protection under the Geneva Convention is when they are tried for their crimes. If they are not tried, and the war continues, they have no rights.

Come on Host, for all those numerous items you look up, at least google the actual laws in place. http://www.genevaconventions.org/

host

Seaver...you're selectively arguing against the point of the thread...by ignoring Cheney's own words, spoken and televised on May 30, 2005....documented on tape....and transcripted:
So....are they....POW's or aren't they. Cheney reversed prior administration contentions, in the quote above....hence the reason for a discussion on this thread!

ubertuber

Your statement (emphasis added by me) seems contradicted by the part of the convention that you posted:

Host, I hate to say it, but I don't think that Cheney informally saying that these guys are prisoners of war (even if he said it on TV) means that there is any legal obligation for the administration to follow through. People say all kinds of things, but in terms of actual formal statements and actions, this administration has been pretty consistent in its views on this subject. Bottom line to me: whether these acts will be viewed as war crimes by future generations has absolutely nothing to do with something that Dick Cheney once told Larry King. The crime and classification occured before that interview anyway.

Not only that, Cheney used the words "in a sense" - which clearly mean "what I'm saying is like this other thing, though it isn't the same as the other thing". There's no way any consideration of war crimes would consider that to be an admission of culpability.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Mojo_PeiPei

To substantiate such serious charges, don't you think the context has to be a little more important then a Larry King interview, perhaps something that is legal and binding? And perhaps the charges might be based off of something more concrete then semantics as Ubertuber pointed out?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

ObieX

I like that. So, basically they're going to keep these people locked up for multiple decades. Because as the president has explained, this is a special type of war that will go on for many many many many many years and may possibly never end. So these people, many of whom may have done NOTHING wrong, are going to be in prison for the rest of their lives.

Also, asking if Dick Cheney lied is like asking if J-Lo has a huge ass. It just goes without saying.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ubertuber

Look, anybody in the public eye as much as an elected official ends up saying lots of stuff over and over again. And sometimes they slip up and say the wrong thing. In some instances this can give a glimpse into the inner workings of the decision making process. I bet this is one of those times - and it tells us something that makes us uncomfortable, even though it's stupidly obvious.

Bush, Cheney, et al are making this up as the go along. This sounds a lot more damning than it is. Hell, I'm making things up as I go along in my life too. In fact, that's pretty much what we do. I know we expect our officials to be perfect and get things right constantly, but with some big stuff, they just have to go with their gut. I bet the idea of making the captured combatents POWs was discussed - a lot. And I bet the decision not to do so was made and some of the ramifications only became clear after the fact. Now I think I'd have made a different decision in this case (but how can I know since I wasn't in the position to make such a decision?), but I certainly don't blame these guys for improvising. Politics is fake it 'till you make it. Sometimes you pick the wrong course.

Now, it wouldn't be such a horrible thing for them to admit this every once in a while and issue a public mea culpa, but that's not their style. This slip of the tounge isn't so revealing to me.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

You know, for fun, I checked one of those Amnesty International citiations of hosts.

Just one, I have better things to do.

And here we go

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021202-6.html

Oh thats damning and shows just how...oh wait....its really nothing at all. As usual AI was attacking the few people willing to fight for freedom and Fleischer was responding to their attacks.

I just checked one randomly, I won't be bothered to check the rest.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

They are not "my" citations...they are plainly attributed to a sourcewatch.org page.

The last part of "Ari's" answer on the white house linked page that you use as an "example", is the reason that sourcewatch cited that page.....
...it seems that Ari Fleischer was telling the press that Amnesty International was not disputing "the accuracy" of the British government "list". That was a "sign", that the administration position was not, as Cheney described it on May 30, 2005:
Ari Fleischer was taking Amnesty International "seriously" enough to use that organization's lack of criticism of the details of the British "list", to support his argument. <b>It showed, that unlike Cheney in May, 2005, Fleischer, speaking in Dec., 2002, took Amnesty International seriously enough to infer that their lack of criticism of the British "list", somehow legitimized it!</b>

Ustwo, if you had looked at the sourcewatch.org citations more thoroughly, you might not have been so quick to dismiss the point. The hypocrisy and shortsightedness of the Bush administration knows no limits:
Uhhh....Ustwo....when your "game" is pre-emptive war...isn't it necessary to demonize the nation or regime that you next intend to "take out"? Isn't the mid 2005 simplistic and empty reaction to crticism by Amnesty International,
by Cheney, et al, akin to sawing off the branch of the tree that you are standing on?

For an U.S. administration that enthusiastically "used" Amnesty International "reports" to justify the waging of it's new policy of "aggressive war", shouldn't
Amnesty International's Guantanamo Gulag report almost automatically be accepted by the U.S. administration, as "truth"? They waged aggressive war against others, signifigantly "justified" by Amnesty reports that suited their purpose. Read the feeble, factless reactions by these folks in the last quote box, compare them to all of the sourcewatch.org citations....then post a convincing argument that our "leaders" are honest, forthright, reputable men who cannot reasonably be accused of war crimes!

Ustwo

AI's criticism or lack there of, of the list means nothing in this context beyond the question at hand. AI was bitching, and Ari pointed out it wasn't what was in the list they were bitching about. That is a far cry from you claim that he did so to legitimize the list.

And host it didn't require a lot of demonizing Iraq on our part, Saddam did that nicely for us. AI was not a tree we were standing on, its not even a twig, its a minor footnote who's actions or inactions had no effect on the outcome. May they have been cited at times against Iraq? Sure maybe, I don't have all day to check your links, and even less time to ferret out misinterpretations, like the above. Using them in such a manner is a far cry from saying that they are accurate in their assessment of US treatment of detainees or that they must always be taken at their word. Even the NY Times get a story right once in a while. (and I hope you get the analogy).

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

Back when reporting by Amnesty International was not regarded as "absurd" by Mr. Bush....it was "leaned on" heavily. Take the time, Ustwo, it's good reading...here's an example.....
Ustwo, if you succumb to the incoherent arguments of these folks, their feeble excuses seem to make sense.....but they don't, not really. They have, in a very short time, destroyed the reputation of the U.S. as a "champion of freedom", not that it was richly or widely deserved...but deserved, nonetheless...to some degree...and now it's gone!

Does the following....from the OP CNN transcript, make any sense as a defense?
Cheney must know that his argument that those released from Guantanamo, are at the least, liars. After all, as he says....<b>Remember who's down there.....</b> My problem with his dismissal of those who've been released, as "liars", is similar to the problem I have with all of the attempts by our "leaders" to assault my sensibilities......if everyone detained at Guantanamo is a "terrorist, trying to kill Americans", why the fuck are "liars" being released to go home and tell stories of abuse?

If people were taken into custody, transported to Guantanamo, held without court hearings, or access to a lawyer, without notification to the outside world of their detention, and then released...they seem to me to be victims of flagrant and intentional violations of the Geneva Conventions by the U.S. during a "time of war", Cheney's offensive and incoherent excuses, notwithstanding.